For Me and My Gal

source: For Me and My Gal

How both stars must have rolled their eyes when they read this screenplay. The volume of clichés is atrocious: The oversentimental celebration of vaudeville; the romantic triangle; the heel gaining a conscience; the splitting-up-the-act intrigue; the brother and his fate; lines like "you'll never be ready for the big time, because you're small-time in your heart" (Judy nevertheless makes it work). Yet it's a pleasure to view, because Judy and Gene really bring out something special in each other. They did again in "Summer Stock"; in "The Pirate," to my eyes, not so much. She has a gravity and sincerity that balance his self-adoration and schtick, and he was always more persuasive playing a guy of questionable moral values than a mensch. You have to put up with George Murphy at his dullest and Ben Blue at his unfunniest, and Marta Eggerth, as accomplished as she is, appears to be in the wrong movie--she should be doing a Joe Pasternak operetta, not an Arthur Freed extravaganza. But when the two leads sing or dance (she was, in the Forties, a better dancer than she was ever given credit for) or, surprisingly, act together, they're tremendously moving. At her best, which she wasn't always but is here, Judy was the best there was. My favorite moment: the ending of "After You've Gone." Rather than smothering her performance in applause and cutting to a shot of an appreciative audience, Berkeley just fades out. It's MGM's way of saying: Enjoy it, folks, this is as good as it gets.

I keep coming back to this film for many reasons. The vaudeville-based story is an attractive look at a bygone era in American theatrical history, and, while it's almost certainly been romanticized in the process, the feel of it and many of the details seem right to me. Then there's the way Kelly and Garland work together onstage. I wouldn't say there was an inordinate amount of "chemistry" between them -- you don't see sparks flying or feel any real sexuality in their relationship -- but they blend extremely well, and look and sound good when they're performing together, despite Garland's obvious lesser dancing skills compared to Kelly. Other reviewers here have commented on the propagandistic nature of the film, and it's impossible to deny the truth of that, and yet, despite that ulterior motivation, and the thinness of the plot's conceit, the film inevitably, after many viewings, provokes me to tears at the end. I wouldn't say that this film is one of my top ten, or a standout piece of cinema, but it certainly is a sentimental favorite, and I would heartily recommend it to anyone who is interested in vaudeville, enjoys seeing a good song-and-dance routine, likes either of the two stars, and who will, occasionally, allow themselves to be moved by a simple, somewhat corny, story. For those people, as it is for me, this film will be a delight.

Terrific plot underscores this great 1942 musical starring Gene Kelly, Judy Garland and George Murphy. While Murphy is relegated to a totally supporting role in this film, it was more than worth it as he holds his own. The musical numbers including the title song are marvelously staged. The tempo picks up as classic World War 1 songs are sung by Miss Garland and Mr. Kelly. You would never think that a Garland-Kelly musical with the two falling in love and fighting off temptation to abandon each other so as to advance in their careers would fall upon such tragedy here. Who would ever expect that the plot would finally revolve about Kelly's way to avoid selective service so that he could play at his beloved Palace Theater, only to incur the wrath of Garland whose brother is killed in the war. This was definitely the best of the 3 films that Garland and Kelly made together. The others were "The Pirate" (1948) and Garland's last film for MGM-"Summerstock," in 1951 Note that this film came only after 3 years of Judy's "The Wizard of Oz," and yet she shows a phenomenal maturity here thus breaking out of her teenage role tradition. It was all uphill for Judy after this one. Who sang for Martha Eggert in the film? Whoever it was did a fantastic job. This heartwarming piece is a piece of Americana at its best.

Maybe two full-on musical numbers with Kelly and Garland, and the whole film degenerates into a very shallow device for military recruitment (it is 1942), with hackneyed and extremely superficial melodrama and military heroics replacing all singing and dancing for the last thirty or forty minutes of the movie. I love Gene Kelly and Judy Garland, but this film just sucks. Rate it a three.

'For Me and My Gal' had so much going for it on paper, with the involvement of immensely talented people like Judy Garland, Gene Kelly and Busby Berkeley. It has its flaws, but when it's good it's fabulous and showcases the two stars brilliantly. The story and script are admittedly slight and heavy in the clichés, complete with an ending that feels tacked on (and apparently it was, hardly surprising). The supporting cast's performances also don't compare to those of Kelly and Garland. Well George Murphy is good, he is very likable and charming, the problem is that he is underused and deserved more considering his talent. Ben Blue is unfunny and annoying however, and Marta Eggerth seemed out of place, am a fan of the operatic style of singing but there are far more beautiful voices than Eggerth's rather shrill and metallic sound and the singing doesn't really fit the style of the songs. However, it is very difficult to be too hard on 'For Me and My Gal' because it fills me with so much joy and really does tug at the heart. The best thing about the film is Garland, who is absolutely sensational, with remarkably graceful dancing and as ever her voice is one you can listen to for hours and not get enough of. Her role here is also one of her most relatable and radiantly likable ones. Kelly may have had more endearing roles in his career, but he really shines in charm and technical skill in his debut where his material plays marvellously to his strengths. The two of them are simply magical together, and one is entranced every time they're on screen together or individually. It is also a visually beautiful film. Technicolor it ain't, but it is not a film that cries out for it. The lavishness and elegant sumptuousness is still there and it is beautifully filmed. The songs are truly lovely, with the title song and "When You Wore a Tulip" standing out, and advantaged even further by top-notch direction and choreography by Berkeley (throughout, but especially in those two numbers), it may lack the kaleidoscopic style of his earlier films but never looks overblown or static, basically what cinema is all about. While flawed, the story is still very charming, is lots of fun and there are also some genuinely touching parts that tug at the heart-strings. The pacing never feels dull, even with the slightness, which faces the danger of over-stretching and padding, and over-familiarity. All in all, not a favourite but for fans of Kelly, Berkeley and especially Garland it is a must regardless of its issues. 8/10 Bethany Cox

For Me and My Gal is a rather odd bird. Set during World War I, The film begins by positioning itself as a tribute to the days of vaudeville, with sweet singer Judy Garland meeting obnoxious dancer Gene Kelly on tour. The two predictably team up after doing an impromptu version of For Me and My Gal that is the best thing in the movie. Then the movie wanders into soap opera before pulling the various war- themed threads together into a typical WWII rah-rah boost for contributing to the war effort. The story is a bit of a mess. I suspect the U.S. entry into WWII happened after the film was greenlighted and parts of it were grafted on as part of the war morale-boosting that was an inevitable part of most early 40s movies. There is a lack of cohesion, most notably with George Murphy's character, who feels like the vestigial tail of the original script. The movie also feels a little self-serving in its emphasis on the importance of entertainment for the troops. I feel this movie would have been done better if it's story had been allowed to play out without worries about patriotic fervor. Kelly is likable in his film debut, but his character is unsympathetic, and apparently the studio had to do a lot of reshooting before audiences could leave the theater not hating him. Garland is charming as she leaves her juvenile roles behind, although I can never be totally happy with any Garland movie that doesn't include at least one ballad. They have good chemistry, but it is better featured in The Pirate, which they made later on. The reason to watch a movie like this is for the musical numbers, but while these are good, there isn't much that is memorable (surprisingly director Busby Berkeley didn't do any of his trademark synchronized- chorus-girl numbers). There are also big chunks of the movie where the musical numbers disappear in favor of the story, which just highlights its weaknesses. Overall this isn't a horrible movie, but it's not one I'd particularly recommend.

This might be worth seeing for Judy Garland or Gene Kelly fans. It's Kelly's first film, and he's excellent in it. Garland is beautiful, as always. The film, though, stinks. It's thinly veiled and unintersting WWII propaganda. I've always said that the 1940s was a dead zone for movie musicals, and this proves it better than anything. Busby Berkely directed this film, but you'd never know it. The music is lame and the dance numbers are few and far between - and also lame. Just skip this one. 6/10

Notable for two things: the first adult role for Judy Garland (then just out of her teens), and debut of Gene Kelly, who had previously made an impact on Broadway as Pal Joey. George Murphy also appears as a kind of second-string lead, and one suspects much of his original part went to Kelly as filming progressed. Directed by Busby Berkeley, but without his usual musical sequence flourishes, the plot is focused on the war, specifically the need for able-bodied men to serve rather than squander their lives on selfish pursuits. This means, for Kelly and Garland, putting aside their dreams of vaudeville fame as a team in favour of the greater good. The stars have great chemistry – in their two duets, the title song and ‘If You Wore A Tulip', there is a gaiety and charm which would continue throughout their further collaborations through the forties. Garland shines as you always knew she would from her pictures as a child, and Kelly has the charisma in spades which would put him at the forefront of the golden age of musicals.

If this movie was simply Gene Kelly and Judy Garland exchanging quips (the "Hello Springtime!" bit is especially good) and singing and dancing in a coffee shop, then it would still be entertaining. But that's really not all it is. This movie is more like a drama/romance than a musical, in the way that there are some songs, very good ones, but there is more story than numbers. Yes, the idea is an old one, but there are a few twists that distinguish it from any other wartime romance. (Don't go expecting The Maltese Falcon though.) The little plot weaknesses are forgotten as the actors (particularly Garland) hold it all together. I cried twice, and I almost never cry at movies. I fully recommend For Me and My Gal, unless you're dead-set on a tear-free day.